From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santillana-Hernandez v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2019
No. 14-72274 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 14-72274

06-18-2019

JOSE SANTILLANA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A200-282-455 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Jose Santillana-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that Santillana-Hernandez failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, "[t]he applicant must 'establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.'" (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that young men from Guatemala who resist gang recruitment is not a particular social group). Thus, Santillana-Hernandez's asylum claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Santillana-Hernandez's contention regarding his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.


Summaries of

Santillana-Hernandez v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2019
No. 14-72274 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019)
Case details for

Santillana-Hernandez v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:JOSE SANTILLANA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 18, 2019

Citations

No. 14-72274 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019)